Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Feaster offered an RFA a contract, what loophole did he use?

I'm trying to figure that out too. People keep saying Feaster is a genius for finding this supposed loophole - what loophole is this? That he can, GASP, offer a RFA an offer sheet? Genius! Executive of the year!

[GrammarPolice]

Originally Posted by kehatch

I

Not in response to you, but the previous poster (and other) keep saying that Colorado could have (in essence) blackmailed the Flames by requiring assets in exchange for matching. That is just lubricious. There is no way the NHL would let that slide. It would be the type of scandal that would have them coming down HARD on Colorado if they went that way.

When I suggested it, my tongue was in cheek. The ethical (and probably prudent) thing for Sherman to do had he known about the waiver issue would be to announce.

But, I don't know if I agree with the league coming down hard on Colorado for taking on assets to help the Flames make the best out of a situation they got themselves into.

Bottom dwellers demand valuable assets to take on bad contracts when they help out teams that get themselves into cap space trouble. The league has no issue with that to my knowledge. The league also doesn't look favourably on offer sheets as it creates upward pressure on salaries. Daly seemed to suggest as much with his earlier comments.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I'm trying to figure that out too. People keep saying Feaster is a genius for finding this supposed loophole - what loophole is this? That he can, GASP, offer a RFA an offer sheet? Genius! Executive of the year!

The loophole is simple. The CBA requires waivers in this case. The MOU isn't clear in its wording and can be interpreted as not requiring waivers. Feaster may have decided to take advantage of the poor wording in the MOU by claiming ignorance and hoping for leniency from the NHL and PA. Failing that he would have filed a grievance.

Either way, the loophole is that (if he won) he would have got the player without having to go through the waiver process even though the CBA requires waivers.

I don't know if he was doing that intentionally or was just ignorant. But he might have been playing the loophole (which would explain why he didn't clarify the interpretation with the NHL prior to submitting the offer sheet).

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Scenario 1: Feaster isn't doing enough or hasn't done enough to get a legitimate center. Conclusion: fire him.

Scenario 2 (of 100's really): Feaster took a risk which fell into the very very low probability sector to get a legitimate center. Conclusion: fire him.

Poor guy.

[bomber317]

Originally Posted by GrammarPolice

It's a hypothetical situation of course, but I guess it's a matter or opinion which is better asset management: keeping said asset on the sidelines while you hope he and his agent will eventually capitulate vs. an overpaid ROR that's actually contributing plus the Flames 1st rounder.

Originally Posted by kehatch

It depends. I don't agree with how Colorado managed the situation. But from their perspective they felt they couldn't justify paying O'Reilly more money then Duchene. They didn't want to set that precedence.

However, a team putting forward an offer sheet might have bailed them out. It gave them an excuse to give O'Reilly the contract that they had to to sign him. And they even have an excuse not to trade him for the next 12-months.

Don't forget the option of trading. It was mentioned before that many GMs thought Colorado could do better than a 1st and 3rd round pick they would have received as compensation. They may have been able to orchestrate a good return as time went by. Who knows what a desperate GM would do to trade for ROR.

In terms of an offer sheet bailing out Colorado - I don't think this one really bailed them out. Colorado is taking a lot of heat for matching the contract. The offer sheet was structure so that Colorado would NOT match.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by GrammarPolice

When I suggested it, my tongue was in cheek. The ethical (and probably prudent) thing for Sherman to do had he known about the waiver issue would be to announce.

But, I don't know if I agree with the league coming down hard on Colorado for taking on assets to help the Flames make the best out of a situation they got themselves into.

Bottom dwellers demand valuable assets to take on bad contracts when they help out teams that get themselves into cap space trouble. The league has no issue with that to my knowledge. The league also doesn't look favourably on offer sheets as it creates upward pressure on salaries. Daly seemed to suggest as much with his earlier comments.

Taking assets to take on a bad contract is still a player transaction. Telling a team that if they don't pay up then you are going to refuse to match their offer sheet causing them to lose picks for nothing is blackmail.

It is a significant distinction and one that the league wouldn't tolerate. In this or any other NA pro league.

The league may (or may not) dislike offer sheets. But they are in the CBA they negotiated. Regardless, they aren't going to endorse blackmail in an effort to discourage future offer sheets.

Sorry man, but the implication that black mail would be tolerated by the NHL and that Colorado should have held the Flames feet over the fire for a draft pick is just wrong.

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Scenario 1: Feaster isn't doing enough or hasn't done enough to get a legitimate center. Conclusion: fire him.

Scenario 2 (of 100's really): Feaster took a risk which fell into the very very low probability sector to get a legitimate center. Conclusion: fire him.

Poor guy.

both of them add to each other

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Scenario 1: Feaster isn't doing enough or hasn't done enough to get a legitimate center. Conclusion: fire him.

Scenario 2 (of 100's really): Feaster took a risk which fell into the very very low probability sector to get a legitimate center. Conclusion: fire him.

Poor guy.

Scenario 3: Feaster should recognize after the failed Phaneuf / Stajan trade, Jokinen 1-2-3, failed attempt at Richards/Carter/Richards/Turris, Cervenka experiement, attempt at vets like Conroy/Morrison, etc, etc etc that filling the types of holes he needs to fill while 'building on the fly' isn't reasonable and as such should take a different approach.

This is a desperation move in a series of desperation moves. If he won't turn the page then the conclusion should be: fire him.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Scenario 3: Feaster should recognize after the failed Phaneuf / Stajan trade, Jokinen 1-2-3, failed attempt at Richards/Carter/Richards/Turris, Cervenka experiement, attempt at vets like Conroy/Morrison, etc, etc etc that filling the types of holes he needs to fill while 'building on the fly' isn't reasonable and as such should take a different approach.

This is a desperation move in a series of desperation moves. If he won't turn the page then the conclusion should be: fire him.

I'm sure if you took a quick look at some timelines, you'd see the flaws in scenario 3

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Scenario 3: Feaster should recognize after the failed Phaneuf / Stajan trade, Jokinen 1-2-3, failed attempt at Richards/Carter/Richards/Turris, Cervenka experiement, attempt at vets like Conroy/Morrison, etc, etc etc that filling the types of holes he needs to fill while 'building on the fly' isn't reasonable and as such should take a different approach.

This is a desperation move in a series of desperation moves. If he won't turn the page then the conclusion should be: fire him.

I think you're bang on - you don't pick up all-star calibre young players building on the fly.

I just question if it's Feaster's bad decision to lead the club into another dark ages or if it's ownership. If it is his choice, by all means fire him immediately. The Flames strategic planning has made them a laughingstock around the league and really even sapped alot of us of any hope for the foreseeable future.

[Dorkmaster]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Scenario 3: Feaster should recognize after the failed Phaneuf / Stajan trade, Jokinen 1-2-3, failed attempt at Richards/Carter/Richards/Turris, Cervenka experiement, attempt at vets like Conroy/Morrison, etc, etc etc that filling the types of holes he needs to fill while 'building on the fly' isn't reasonable and as such should take a different approach.

This is a desperation move in a series of desperation moves. If he won't turn the page then the conclusion should be: fire him.

As much as I'd rather rebuild, the ownership group is not going in that direction. The general manager (Feaster) is a reflection of this and firing Feaster just means another is brought in with the intent of competing. Given that this is the path that the Flames are taking, I really think Feaster has done a solid job.

All firing Feaster will do is result in another GM coming in and doing the exact same thing. I think Feaster's trading and general re-tooling of the management group has been a huge positive for the club.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

I'm sure if you took a quick look at some timelines, you'd see the flaws in scenario 3

The only peices of that post relating to Feaster are Richards & Cervenka, really.

Sutter made the Phaneuf trade
Sutter signed Stajan to a 4 year extension 2 months later.
Sutter signed Morrison, but Feaster re-signed him, so that counts as well.
Sutter traded for Jokinen, traded Jokinen away, and re-signed Jokinen
Conroy retired.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by kehatch

The loophole is simple. The CBA requires waivers in this case. The MOU isn't clear in its wording and can be interpreted as not requiring waivers. Feaster may have decided to take advantage of the poor wording in the MOU by claiming ignorance and hoping for leniency from the NHL and PA. Failing that he would have filed a grievance.

Either way, the loophole is that (if he won) he would have got the player without having to go through the waiver process even though the CBA requires waivers.

I don't know if he was doing that intentionally or was just ignorant. But he might have been playing the loophole (which would explain why he didn't clarify the interpretation with the NHL prior to submitting the offer sheet).

But he wasn't the only one making an offer sheet

Not much of a loop hole

I'm not blasting him for his ignorance, but I think its flat out stupid to be giving him credit for finding this so called "loop hole' ... this "loop hole" didn't stop any other team from trying to tender ROR a offer sheet.

[genetic_phreek]

Let's never mention rebuild. I still get nightmares from the days of "young guns".

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Dorkmaster

As much as I'd rather rebuild, the ownership group is not going in that direction. The general manager (Feaster) is a reflection of this and firing Feaster just means another is brought in with the intent of competing. Given that this is the path that the Flames are taking, I really think Feaster has done a solid job.

All firing Feaster will do is result in another GM coming in and doing the exact same thing. I think Feaster's trading and general re-tooling of the management group has been a huge positive for the club.

How is it a huge positive? The team is light years behind anyone in the conference re prospects and proper nucleus in the 23-27 age bracket.

[Phanuthier]

Also if Feaster think he is a genius for finding this "loop hole" and risking it, knowing it can be interpreted differently and there is a chance the Flames could come up with nothing AND lost $2.5M... then for sure, he should be fired and would be quite possibly the stupidest thing I can think of that any GM has done in the history of the NHL.

Mistakes are forgivable, this "finding a loop hole" crap is stupid.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Thinking about this a little more... IF Feaster was confident enough in his interpretation of the MOU to proceed with the offer sheet, this would not be the first time he was ahead of the curve in using the rules to his advantage. Dont forget, he was able to get to Cervenka, before other clubs thought they were permitted. IF he was aware.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by timbit

How is it a huge positive? The team is light years behind anyone in the conference re prospects and proper nucleus in the 23-27 age bracket.

True. But look back to two years ago where the Flames were the second oldest club behind Detroit. Now they're middle of the pack.

The prospect pool is better than it has been, with a couple prospects to really get excited about. That hasn't been the case since.....well I can't even remember.

Baertschi, Backlund, Brodie, Bouma (if he wasn't injured) are full time players that were drafted and developed by the Flames, and all of them look to be solid contributors in the future.

I'm not saying everything is perfect, or that Feaster can't be criticized. Mostly I'm equally parts amused/frustrated by people expecting this club be turned around overnight.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

It's highly amusing to read the thrashings of many who clearly have no legal background or understanding of how legal agreements work. The words are the point - not what Bill Daly "thinks" or some SN writer gets people to prattle - and Daly is certainly not the final arbiter of how the CBA or MOU is to be interpreted. (An arbitrator would be doing that.)

Thanks to those in this thread who do, indeed, clearly have legal training or are lawyers for actually reading the words of the article and understanding and defending the rather significant difference between "a club" and "the club".

The wording in the MOU is unclear and imprecise and the NHL would have had absolutely zero choice but to allow the deal to conclude in its intended manner. No waiver would be required. How that particular article might show up in the drafted CBA is another matter - but we likely won't find that out for quite some time.

Feaster did what a good lawyer does - he found a loophole and used it.

The fact the MOU is slightly vague is exactly why Holland said you have to call the league to get clarification before you do something like this. There is a more detailed document that hasn't been distributed yet, but the league can use it to clairfy any vague issues. If Holland knows this, Feaster should too.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

Thinking about this a little more... IF Feaster was confident enough in his interpretation of the MOU to proceed with the offer sheet, this would not be the first time he was ahead of the curve in using the rules to his advantage. Dont forget, he was able to get to Cervenka, before other clubs thought they were permitted. IF he was aware.

That makes me feel better.